The eccentric behavior of inspiralling compact binaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Even if there is no gauge invariant definition of eccentricity, it has an important impact on the observed gravitational wave signal of such systems, generating power in all possible harmonics of the orbital period. We here clarify the possible discrepancies between different eccentricity parameters used to describe the orbital dynamics of binary systems across different approximations, specifically the post-Newtonian approximation, the self-force approximation, and numerical relativity. To this end, we highlight disparities between the typically used orbit averaged method of evolving binary systems under radiation reaction, and more direct techniques of solving the two-body problem in post-Newtonian theory. We show, both numerically and analytically, that the orbit averaged method breaks down in the late inspiral, failing to capture a strong secular growth in the Keplerian eccentricity parameter and producing a orbital de-phasing relative to direct integration of the two-body equations of motion. We show that the secular growth and de-phasing affect the observed gravitational wave signal, which could bias how accurately we may recover parameters for systems with signal-to-noise ratios . We further develop a frequency domain post-adiabatic waveform model to capture these effects, and study the precision to which we may estimate parameters with this model through a Fisher information matrix analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".